Anything involving sexuality has been hotly contested of late. Is it any wonder? For the past few election cycles, candidates' platforms have addressed gay marriage and sex ed. Opposition to gay marriage and support for abstinence-only education is usually, if not always, a stance based on a candidate's religious beliefs and those of his or her intended constituents. As these have become more important social issues, it's only natural that we find a way to explain them to our youngest members. Hence books, such as "Daddy's Roommate," and "Heather Has Two Mommies," which are often met with outrage and demand for withdrawal when they appear in libraries.
One of the newest targets? The Merriam-Webster dictionary. Its offense is the inclusion of a clinical definition for "oral sex." "We don't want our children seeing this," they say, or, "We want to teach these things at home."
Often, the same people who challenge these books keep a book (usually more than one) in their homes which they use to tell their children stories of disobedience, rape, incest, homosexuality, heterosexuality, war, adultery, racism and the death of children, not to mention many, many horrifically violent murders. Children sing songs about genocide (death by drowning for most of the world's population), murders attempted in various ways (burning the victims alive, throwing them to lions) and satanic forces. They do this all in places decorated with artistic renderings of a torture victim.
Who are these people? Christians of all denominations.
Before I go any further, I'll make a couple of disclaimers: I know that not every parent who challenges a book or asks for its removal does so for religious reasons. However, it is a very popular rationale, particularly for content involving sexuality. Second, I mean this in no way to disparage Christianity or the Bible; I am a Christian, but I also believe in using common sense.
What this comes down to is that children are either able to process these topics or they aren't. Clearly, Christians believe their children are able to handle the following, as they are classic Sunday School stories:
Genocide: Noah's Ark (Genesis chapters 6-9)
Ethnic cleansing: Pharaoh's oppression of Israel (Exodus chapter 1)
Murder: Cain and Abel (Genesis chapter 4)
Attempted murder: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace (Daniel chapter 3), Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel chapter 6)
Nudity, lust, adultery, murder and the death of a child: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapter 11)
Torture and murder: Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, John chapter 19)
Children's Bibles or Bible story books often present drawings of such (these are taken from my own childhood Bible story book):
 |
| Read N Grow Picture Bible. Fort Worth, TX: Sweet, 1984. 134. Print |
These stories are perfectly acceptable, they say, because they are true, it's the Bible, they teach the consequences of sin and/or they are being taught at home. All fine points.
However, violence and sexuality also happen in real life and in non-religious books. Can't parents also use these to teach consequences or to reinforce values?
The Bible certainly doesn't hide that homosexuality exists, and any curious child can easily stumble upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapter 19). Is it any worse to bring home a fictional book about a child who has two daddies or two mommies (and in which no one offers their children up to sex-starved crowd)? I say no, it isn't.
A common-sense approach to finding a library book dealing with these topics in a child's backpack would be to read it together and discuss it. Parents can share with their children their views on homosexuality and gay marriage and teach that it isn't OK to ostracize or make fun of classmates for the makeup of their family. It also reinforces that home is the place to ask about confusing or uncomfortable topics. The same goes for depictions of heterosexuality. The Song of Solomon is all about the sexual relationship between a husband and wife. While it contains no graphic depictions of sexual acts, it is far more lustful and passionate than a very unsexy dictionary definition.
So let's use some common sense. Children are able to understand a variety of "adult" topics if presented to them in an age-appropriate way and discussed with a parent. Besides, most children who first hear of "oral sex" by reading the dictionary will likely need to look up the words "oral," "stimulation," and "genitals" to fully comprehend the act. In children this young, comprehension is likely to be followed by, "EWWWWWWW!"
Wow. I never actually thought of book banning that way. It's interesting to think about anyways; Christians wanting books banned when many Christian texts have the same themes. It definitely makes me think about this subject differently.
ReplyDeleteI love that you thought about this controversial issue in such a different wa, it really made me rethink my position on the issue and why.
ReplyDeleteYou made excellent points on the hypocrisy of some people who claim Christianity and try and ban all types of books. I would like to add that it's not only Christians banning books.
ReplyDeleteYes, some Christians are leading the pack in banning some books. However, it is important to note that while they are hypocritically banning literature with "controversial" issues, there are so many other types of people with varying religious backgrounds that are trying to ban the bible itself --not to mention all of the religious literature that makes up the first half of American literature. There are plenty of lawsuits going on RIGHT now that are about trying to protect the rights of individuals in schools to read religious literature including the Bible. The people who ban these in the first place are many times atheists and agnostics in the name of "Separation of Church and State." (Complete misinterpretation of the constitution to say the least).
THANK you. I understand that you aren't singling out Christians, but merely using them as an example. I grew up saying the same thing about the bible. Has anyone actually read it? Its a great source of information if you want to trade, sell, buy, or judge slaves as well as for punishment. Incest and patricide abound. Punishment suggestions if not rules (eye for an eye, anyone?) the list goes on and on. Oh, and don't forget the infanticide.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the people asking for books to be banned is that they refuse to accept the fact that, for the most part, the books they want to ban are sadly accurate reflections of the real world in which we all live. No, its not pretty, but it is what it is. Hiding our children away from it won't stop it, but neither should we parade it out and traumatize them without need.
Take "The Grapes of Wrath". My grandmother lived through the Depression, and so, despite many parents trying to have the book banned at the time I was in high school, I found it to be a unique look into the past of the woman I never knew. For that, the book is very dear to me.
In my opinion, book banning is simply another form of enforcing ignorance and claiming its for the protection of the innocent. Instead, why not allow exposure to these unique perspectives of the world in a controlled and debatable manner? The children get the moral of the story without having to experience the horror, pain, or suffering first hand. It encourages them to think, to feel, to wonder and ponder on the meaning and weight of those books and their stories.
Well, they would if you could get them to even read, these days.